From 1965 to 1988, spending on food in the United States climbed 46 pe

A is definately strong. B is tempting but think that people buying from regular stores 26% and 20% from supermarket.
Compared with 26% spending on restaurants and 20% on supermarkets makes more sense.

Also B reads people bought 'certain products' from regular stores. if it would have said a 'very high percentage' of food from regular stores... B would have been a better choice.
hope this helps.

The stimulus says that spending on food to be consumed at home grew by only 20% which implies spending on food not consumed at home must have increased to balance out the spending. A says the same thing.

B says shoppers spent more on certain food products to be consumed at home that are no generally available in supermarket . This is not strong enough since according to stimulus most spending on food to be consumed at home was done at supermarket.

Hope it helps

Spending on food in the United States climbed 46 percent.
Spending on food to be consumed at home — purchased mainly from supermarkets — grew by only 20 percent.

Note that "purchased mainly from supermarkets" is an aside. It is not the main part of the sentence. It gives us some extra information that food consumed at home is purchased mainly from supermarkets (but it could be purchased from other stores too)

The main sentence is this:
Spending on food to be consumed at home grew by only 20 percent.

Then the rest of the extra spending must have happened for food to be consumed outside of home - wherever that may be.

(A) Spending on food increased at restaurants and other food retailers that prepare food to be consumed away from home.

Option (A) clearly mentions retailers that prepare food to be consumed away from home. So it covers the "away from home" parameter well. Hence, this is correct.

(B) Shoppers spent more on certain food products to be consumed at home that are not generally available in supermarkets.

They spent 20% extra on all food consumed at home (whether bought at supermarkets or other places). So we cannot make the distinction between supermarkets and other places. The argument only gives us the figure for at home consumption (including all places from where people buy for at home consumption)
So (B) is incorrect.

Answer (A)

The key information in the passage is:

• Overall food spending rose 46% from 1965 to 1988.
• Spending on food to be consumed at home (mostly from supermarkets) rose only 20%.

This implies that a larger portion of the increase in food spending came from food consumed away from home (like restaurants or take-out).
Let’s evaluate the options:
(A) Spending on food increased at restaurants and other food retailers that prepare food to be consumed away from home.
✅ This directly follows from the information: if overall food spending rose 46% and supermarket/home food spending only rose 20%, the rest must be from food consumed away from home.
(B) Shoppers spent more on certain food products to be consumed at home that are not generally available in supermarkets.
🚫 This is not supported. The statement doesn’t mention spending outside supermarkets for home food.
(C) Food prices at supermarkets neither rose nor dropped relative to food prices at other food retailers.
🚫 No price comparison is made in the passage.
(D) There was a decrease in the number of heads of households, who tend to spend more than other household members on food consumed away from home.
🚫 This is speculative and not supported by the passage.
(E) The number of people who ate at restaurants decreased relative to the number of people who ordered take-out food from restaurants.
🚫 Also speculative — nothing in the passage compares restaurant dining vs. take-out.
✅ Correct answer: (A)

Why is it not B? For A - no mention of restaurants

If spending on food to be consumed at home was the ONLY type of food spending, then the growth rate of one would always equal the growth rate of the other.

But that's not the case. We are told that overall food spending has increased by 46 percent while spending on food to be consumed at home grew by only 20 percent. That discrepancy means that there MUST be other categories of food spending. And the average increase in spending in those other unspecified categories must be greater than 46, in order to balance out the 20 percent increase in the given category.

It's like a weighted average problem. In this case we can break up food spending into two distinct categories: 1) spending on food to be consumed at home and 2) all other food spending. If overall food spending increased by 46 percent and category #1 only increased by 20 percent, then category #2 must have increased by more than 46 percent to balance things out.

The passage does not explicitly mention the other types of food spending that would constitute group #2, but we know that they must exist. And what other kinds of food spending are there? Well, if you aren't buying the food to consume it at home, you're likely buying it to consume it somewhere else, like a restaurant or other retailer.

Sure, we could come up with some other kinds of food spending (such as buying food to donate or give as a gift, or buying eggs to throw at your GMAT tutor's house). But given the data, it's a pretty safe bet to conclude that spending on food increased at restaurants and other food retailers that prepare food to be consumed away from home.

(B) is out because any foods to be consumed at home fall into the 20% group, regardless of whether they are purchased at a supermarket or some other type of market. (B) might be true, but there's no evidence indicating that it is. (A) is a much better answer.

I hope that helps!